What if Bush had said it.

“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

It’s astounding how stupid our leaders are. This is the man pushing climate legislation down our throats. He hasn’t got a F…… clue about climate.

I guess that pretty well settles what his goals must be then. Wouldn’t you say?

——-

Rate this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on April 26, 2009 at 3:47 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

cogitosaid

Kenneth Fritschsaid

Jeff ID, I am pretty much a non-or bi-partisan disregarder of our politicians’ abilities to reason. It is not that they are stupid, but that they are used to using sloppy thinking and getting away with it. That is a rather uninformed statement by Waxman, if he said it, but my point would be that no one in the mainstream media or NPR has called him on it.

If your point here Jeff is that AGW mitigation policy will be decided on politics more than informed judgment, I agree. That development does not affect my desire to know the truth about GW and its effects and I hope it does not for others who remain unconvinced.

Ice caps cover less than 50 000 km² of land area and therefore if Waxman was referencing the Artic ice he would have used sheets.

However, we have the term polar ice cap which in terms of the above definition could be a misnomer for the Arctic as it might be considered an ice sheet but than the Arctic ice is over water and not land. Nevertheless, Waxman can legitimately use the term ice cap.

From the above link we can see that Henry W was actually referring to the polar (Arctic) ice melting and than through a rapid acting positive feedback from the change in albedo the melting of ice/snow over the tundra.

Here we have:” There are two types of tundra: Arctic tundra (which also occurs in Antarctica) and alpine tundra.[2] In tundra, the vegetation is composed of dwarf shrubs, sedges and grasses, mosses, and lichens. Scattered trees grow in some tundra.”

So there you have it: the Arctic Tundra. This gets a little tricky here so bear with me. The listeners to Henry’s comment were confused because he was referencing the melting of the the Arctic Ice Cap affecting the Arctic Tundra even though the two do not correspond geographically. When Henry said “there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.” He did not mean that literally, but in the sense that the melting polar ice cap in the Artic would cause the Arctic tundras in the world to no longer be hold back in growth (held down). Yeah, that’s the ticket, that’s what he meant.

Fluffy Clouds (Tim L)said

Stansaid

Of course, see e.g. the media (non) coverage of Joe Biden’s brain dead ramblings. Or John Kerry. Or Algore. Or Ted Kennedy.

Same tune. 758th verse.

Great story told on CSPAN back in 1993 by the ombudsman for the Wash Post about how politically partisan newspapers were and how they had been partisan his entire career. His first assignment as a journalist for a major paper was to write a political campaign speech for a Democratic candidate. His second assignment was to cover the speech and write the news story. (He thought it was a great speech.) His third was to write the paper’s editorial endorsement.

Stansaid

Note, the same standards apply to newspaper coverage of global warming, the homeless, Katrina, Iraq, the economy, and Barack Obama’s close relationships with a staggering number of extremists. All the news that fits (the narrative), they print.